- From: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:25:10 -0700
- To: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Cc: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9FC9C6B2EA71ED4B826F55AC7C8B9AAB01F336B6@mvmbx01.ilog.biz>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > you could have your lexer recognize Prefix(anyIdent > anything:except.a/right.paren) as a single token. That is, *context-sensitive* tokenizing - talk about simple! (And BLD PS ain't even a "real" language...) I thought that the PS had no other purpose but to simplify the presentation of examples. Apparently it must also please MK's taste. His arguments (about equality, xsd:string - do not fly in the least technically with me) and boil down his personal sense of taste - which apparently this WG and most potential implementers ought to share as a matter of principle. Anyways, I am giving up arguing. I'll just put everything on hold until MK convinces this WG that his sense of aesthetics is both paramount *and* implementable. Which is fine with me, because I do have other pressing things to see to. TTFN, -hak -- Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci -----Original Message----- From: Gary Hallmark [mailto:gary.hallmark@oracle.com] Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 7:20 AM To: Hassan Ait-Kaci Cc: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu; public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [BLD] PS specs amendments you could have your lexer recognize Prefix(anyIdent anything:except.a/right.paren) as a single token. Hassan Ait-Kaci wrote: > > Michael, > > Thank you for caring to explain. But we seem to be talking in > circles. Let me make my position clear: > > I don't care what the PS looks like - but I would expect it to be > parsable; at least if we wish for an implementation. > > > Here we are arguing about the details, not substance. I just pointed > > out that "..." don't look good here because "http:/bar.baz/fuz#" is > > supposed to be an xsd:string according to the DTB syntax. > > Notwithstanding whether this "looks good" to you or not, I do not > agree. We *are* arguing about substance when the issue is about how to > actually parse your EBNF. As I pointed out repeatedly, the only place > for these double-quoted occurrences are in the Base and Prefix > *directives* not *grammar rules*. (See > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas, Item 7 of the > definition of a Document formula.) They define "shorcuts" precisely > to allow CURIE notation to be used in the document following their > occurrence. In other words, I do not agree that "... > "http:/bar.baz/fuz#" is supposed to be an xsd:string ... ". The > occurrence there one of a pragma - it is not part of the body of a > document Uniterm or Frame. I do not see (nor agree) that it must be an > xsd:string. > > > Right. What IRI is in Prefix and Base is up to us. > > Right. So, in what way is what I am suggesting contradicting this? > > > > So, unless I am missing something that you will explain to me, it is > > > not that "#4 clash with the assumptions underlying PS&DTB" but rather > > > that the assumptions underlying PS&DTB EBNF's are inconsistent! > > > > Nope. The example is simply wrong (the book(cpt:author->?Author > > cpt:title->bks:LeRif) part). > > So what is the correct form? Is - or isn't - cpt:author allowed as the > name of the argument to book? The current EBNF surely does not allow a > CURIE there. So do you mean that *all* the named-argument Uniterm > examples in the current specs are wrong? BTW, I do not understand why > CURIE's should not be allowed as they are in the examples. All I am > suggesting is that they be allowed as names as well (as the examples > show). > > Regarding what I am proposing and what you are proposing, let me say > the following: I feel pretty confident that I can provide an > implementation with the simple amendments I suggested. If you have > better, sexier, anythinger, ideas to make the PS *parsable* by non > mind-reading voodoo priests, and can explain it to simple minds like > me, then I am all for it... :-) Basically, the bottom line is: > whatever suits your taste will be fine with me as long as it is simple > to understand and *implement*. > > -hak > > > -hak > -- > Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] > Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 5:45 AM > To: Hassan Ait-Kaci > Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: [BLD] PS specs amendments > > > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:44:43 -0700 > "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com> wrote: > > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:47:25 -0700 > > > "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > In the light of the recent discussions regarding parsing the > > > > RIF BLD into RIF XML, I would like to submit the following > > > > to this WG to decide. > > > > > > > > I propose to change the current RIF BLD EBNF to: > > > > > > Hassan, > > > > > > #1 and #4 clash with the assumptions underlying PS&DTB. > > > > Michael, > > > > In several mails preceding the one in which I listed these 4 points, > > I pointed out in some details some of the problems caused by not having > > them. > > > > Re: #1, allowing IRI's to appear unquoted (note that the <...> > > notation poses no problem, while something it is something like: > > > > Prefix ( foo http:/bar.baz/fuz# ) > > > > does), for example, the ':' in the IRI is not the ':' of a CURIE. How > > does a tokenizer know that ? All I am proposing is to change the > > notation to: > > > > Prefix ( foo "http:/bar.baz/fuz#" ) > > > > so that the problem disappears. > > Here we are arguing about the details, not substance. I just pointed > out that > "..." don't look good here because "http:/bar.baz/fuz#" is supposed to be > an xsd:string according to the DTB syntax. This is why I mentioned <...> > as a better alternative. (Also, see below before rushing to respond to > that > one.) > > > Re: #4, in a recent email, I pointed out to Harold that the current > > EBNF rules are inconsistent as they stand with his using CURIE's as > > argument names (see > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0146.html). > > > > So, unless I am missing something that you will explain to me, it is > > not that "#4 clash with the assumptions underlying PS&DTB" but rather > > that the assumptions underlying PS&DTB EBNF's are inconsistent! > > Nope. The example is simply wrong (the book(cpt:author->?Author > cpt:title->bks:LeRif) part). > > > > #3 is already in DTB, and I do not quite understand what you mean > by #2. > > > > #3 is indeed in the current spec, but not for named arguments Name's > > that do not derive CURIE's although all the examples Harod uses employ > > CURIE's for names of arguments. Again, this is referring to recently > > exchanged email on the RIF list (e.g., > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0154.html). > > Yes, and this is a mistake. (See the end of the msg about the possible > ways > out.) > > > Perhaps I have missed something that will explain to me. Please go > ahead. > > as above. > > > > Re #1, double quotes are reserved for the abridged syntax for > strings in > > > DTB. The abridged syntax for IRIs is <...>. > > > > Look at the examples. BTW, it is not true that "the abridged syntax > > for IRIs is <...>." The notation <foo> stands for "foo"^^rif:iri. The > > use of IRI's in the EBNF is only limited to Prefix and Base grammar > > productions. As they appear there in the PS, there is not quoting > > and it is explained to "Recall that an IRI has the form of an > > internationalized resource identifier as defined by [RFC-3987]." > > Right. What IRI is in Prefix and Base is up to us. We made it into a > sequence > of unicode chars that form an IRI, but it could well be and IRICONST. > There are > no objective criteria to decide, so we chose one of them (recall that > we were > barred from making PS into a concrete language, and we were forced to > include statements to that effect in various places). > > The problem is that "..." is a ^^xsd:string. So, if we want delimiters > then it > should be something else. For example, '...'. Or we could make it into an > IRICONST. > > > Again, what am I missing? Please explain. > > > > > I do not understand what you are trying to achieve with #4. > > > > What about: make the BLD examples consistent with the specs? > > As I said, the example was wrong. > > > > As far as I can see, it is not easy to reconcile this with PS, and > I do not > > > understand why do you need this particular change. > > > > From what I can read and understand from the documents available today, > > I beg to differ. But I concede that I may not have understsood > everything. > > Again, whatever I am missing, I would be happy to understand. > > The EBNF is consistent with the normative English spec for PS. > The examples have a problem. The easiest way out is to fix the examples. > Alternatively, we could generalize the spec. But in that case the > solution is > not what you have proposed but rather get rid of the simplifying > assumption > that the argument names come from a separate set ArgNames and instead use > arbitrary constants there. > > I don't know whether it is ok to do such a generalization after the > last call, > and I am not sure that this generalization is a good one either. > > > Thanks for explaining. > > Thanks for spotting the mistakes in the examples :-) > > michael > > > > > --michael > > > > -hak > > > > > > > > > 1. allow IRI's only within double quotes; > > > > > > > > 2. do not perform expansion of relative IRI's; > > > > > > > > 3. allow CURIE's everywhere as specified in the EBNF today > > > > as CONSTSHORT's; > > > > > > > > 4. allow Name's to derive CURIE's. > > > > > > > > With the above simple amendments, I am confident that I can > > > > specify a workable tokenizer and Jacc grammar for a new > > > > version of my BLD->XML tool. > > > > > > > > In order to speed things up a bit, it would be nice if the > > > > above issues could be settled soon, so that I can proceed > > > > with the new release. I will be travelling starting > > > > tomorrow and will spend the whole month of October working > > > > in ILOG France. I will not attend this F2F in NYC - not > > > > even remotely (in fact I will be in planes most of its > > > > duration). I will attend the F2F debrief planned for next > > > > Tuesday's telecon. Only after then will I have time to > > > > start implementing the above amendments. > > > > > > > > Have a fun F2F in NY, NY (my kinda town!)... > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > -hak > > > > -- > > > > Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D > > > > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci > > > > > > -hak > > -- > > Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D > > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:26:15 UTC